Filing 36

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE - granting in part and denying in part 7 Motion to Dismiss; denying 17 Motion to Strike. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mnw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE PRECISION PAYROLL SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ADVANTAGE PAYROLL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 2:16-cv-00439-NT ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE Before me is the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts Four through Six of the Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Defendant’s counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 7); Pl.’s Mot. to Strike (ECF No. 17). The Plaintiff in this case is Precision Payroll Services LLC (“Precision”), a franchisee of Defendant Advantage Payroll Services, Inc. (“Advantage”). Precision is one of five franchises (“the Associates”) that have brought concurrent suits against Advantage. See Howell v. Advantage Payroll Services, Inc., No. 2:16-438-NT. Precision filed separately and only against Advantage because it could not establish diversity jurisdiction over its claims against Paychex. Compl. ¶ 5 (ECF No. 1). For the reasons set forth in my Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, Howell v. Advantage Payroll Services, Inc., No. 2:16-438- NT, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss on Counts Four and Five and GRANTS the motion to dismiss on Count Six. The Court DENIES the motion to strike. SO ORDERED. /s/ Nancy Torresen United States Chief District Judge Dated this Dated this 28th day of February, 2017. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?